Kramon_TDF14_stage3_DSC8249 - Version 2
  • H.E. Pennypacker

    Remember kids, if you’re glowing and about to get popped, be sure to openly admit it on the form. It makes the “non-intentional anti-doping rule violation” argument much easier. Plus you get to shrug at the journalists and look at them incredulously and say, “If I was intentionally doping, would I have openly admitted it on the form?”

    • Shane Stokes

      Surely if you were glowing and about to get popped you wouldn’t place sixth on a stage of Paris-Nice?

      • H.E. Pennypacker

        Maybe he’s not so bright. ;-) I’m being glib and flippant, obviously. I suppose I just struggle with the issue of TUEs and their frequency. Which probably means I’m not giving Yates a fair shake, here. I can admit that. Biases and personal prejudices are tough to overcome–even when we’re aware of them.

  • Berne Shaw

    He and his team all deliberately ignored this and thought it would go undetected. Wrong! He is fortunate to get only 4 months.

    • MD

      Huh? I don’t see how either he, his team, nor the UCI testing system has in any way either ignored it or hoped it would go undetected. It is trivial for the UCI to check whether he has had a TUE in the previous years for this drug. It’s also trivial to check that he always declared it when tested. If he had one in previous years and he always declared the drug, and he declared the drug in this test too, it seems extremely reasonable to assume that the only different between this test and previous ones is the administrator omission of a TUE. I would agree that something is odd if someone has been caught using a drug they have never had a TUE for, but in this case it’s obvious that as he has always had a TUE in the past, that he ought to have had one now, but for the admin mistake. No one was ignoring anything.

  • Neuron1

    This seems pretty fair/reasonable, but I would have thought that he would have gotten six months like Ulissi, for the consistency.

    • Dave

      For the consistency, he got exactly the same as the last rider to be sanctioned for terbutaline use by the UCI. A day over four months and they would have taken it to CAS.

      Ulissi was sanctioned by the Swiss federation (he uses a Swiss racing licence like Michael Rogers used to) rather than the UCI, having been done before the UCI took over sanctioning. Under the version of the WADA Code in force at the time, I believe that one would have been only a reprimand and loss of results if he hadn’t asked for the B Sample.

    • MD

      I think one difference was the drug itself. Ulissi’s drug can be taken without a TUE up to a certain amount (an amount which I recall being unlikely to be taken through the normal inhaler method). Yates’ drug always requires a TUE. An unintended consequence of always requiring a TUE is that the UCI could likely see whether this was a new drug in his body that he suddenly claimed he had meant to get a TUE for, or, as is the case, was one he had been getting a TUE for the past few years for. Ironically, the need to get a TUE repeatedly in the past probably helped show his case that this is not a new drug in his system and that it was an admin oversight this time round. Most people who get extreme-exercise-induced asthma start off on Salbutamol (Ulissi’s drug). I had it all though my teens too, and it would hit me on intense efforts. It’s nothing like being tired and out of breath and gasping for air – it doesn’t come right by just backing off like mere physical exertion would. I used salbutamol for that reason and when I did it made me feel like a normal person would – i.e. dying and gasping for breath under serious effort but as soon as you back off it gets better. My doctor specifically told me that it would have no effect on me if/when I didn’t need it – your airways can’t be opened up more than being normal. I did notice side effects though – felt jittery and on edge sometimes when using it. My understanding is that for some people, the side effects can be bad enough that another drug is better… the one Yates was using for instance.

  • JoshLyons

    Doper! Admittedly or not.

    • MD

      That’s a well constructed argument.

      • JoshLyons

        It’s not an argument. It’s a fact!

        • MD

          I guess that depends on whether you think taking medicine for health reasons is the same as taking drugs to enhance your performance. Pretty clearly you think there is no difference. Given that you describe it as a “fact” you clearly aren’t aware that not everyone holds your view and that it therefore isn’t a “fact” it’s merely your opinion.

          • JoshLyons

            But it’s still a fact. He took a banned substance.

            • MD

              Millions of asthmatics take that substance every day. Are they dopers in your eyes as well? Or only those who race bikes? Or only those who take it for performance enhancing reasons? Clearly you aren’t interested in a rational debate backed up by logical arguments so there’s no point continuing this particular discussion. People will draw their own conclusions about the matter without my arguments and your “facts”.


Pin It on Pinterest

October 24, 2016
October 22, 2016
October 21, 2016